Empathy can be a preventative for humanity making those decisions which need to be made.
I'm sure someone like Hitler thought/felt/spoke the same way regarding how exterminating the Jewish population would "facilitate Germany's rise to power"...
Empathy can be a preventative for humanity making those decisions which need to be made.
Why is that such a problem?The punishment isn't the problem, Bells.
It's the blanket "authority" under which that punishment is rendered.
Ya think?This one is a touch too large for me at the moment.
One utopia deems women to be equal in all ways with rights over their own bodies. The other utopia tells rape victims they have failed if they are raped because they somehow did not prevent it or deem women to be murderers if they choose to exercise their rights over their own bodies.Other than to say... would you really want to live in Tiassa's particular Utopia?
Yes, everything is about control. Which begs the question of why you are poo pooing the thought that a rapist should be punished for their crime? So much so that you are complaining about the authority under which that authority is rendered, after the little spiel of lack of empathy for the rapist.The various brands of Socialism and Authoritarianism are not so far apart, in terms of eventual outcomes.
Everything is about control, as much as it may purport otherwise.
Actually, you are the one who made a rash and emotional judgement about me, which is completely unfounded. My general advice to you, Marquis dear, is to check your sources.You didn't. Noise got in the way, and I made an assumption. You can have that one.
You do have a habit of making quick emotional judgements, though.
If you lack tolerance and empathy, it stands to reason that you would find it hard to recognise it in others.I was actually commenting on those who think they do, Bells. I wasn't saying I had it myself.
I'm not an overly tolerant person.
As I said, poor widdle rapist being so misunderstood and damn the bitch who "failed" because she wasn't prepared.Empathy should never preclude or prevent action. But in this world, it has a tendency to drive it, which is perhaps even more dangerous.
I have never known you to not protest my answers Marquis.I do "softly softly" comment on just about everything. Strange choice of words, that, by the way.
I see the problems, Bells, with your "answers". Does this preclude me from the right to protest yours?
And your head is so far deep in the dirt, you are growing roots. I suspect your problem is that we do see the forest for the trees.I don't have any of my own. You and Tiassa can't see the forest for the trees, though. You think idealism cannot coincide with reality. There is no "right now", Bells. You deal with life, and you figure out ways you might improve it. That's all humanity has ever done, and all it can do. So often, we leave the improvements to those not exactly qualified to make them.
Preparedness?That isn't the point, Bells.
Your comments annoyed me because as a rebuttal of Trooper advocating preparedness, you've used the example of a 100-year old woman being raped as evidence of the advocation of preparedness contributing to "Rape Culture".
Don't you see?
Ah gold.Nope.
The anti-rape and prevention movement had a huge impact on public opinion, and now you want to insist that rape prevention is victim blaming. Our parents worked their ass off to change public opinion. They wanted to help victims of sexual violence become survivors of violence instead of victims, and now you’re insisting that rape prevention is victim blaming. I’m not buying it.
And yes, Tiassa, it is fight or flight, not freeze. You should always consider a rape attack to be a life threatening situation. Don't assume that you’re going to lose, or if you cooperate that he won’t hurt or kill you, even if he tells you this. It’s kind of hard to fight, though, if you don’t know how. He’s fighting for sex. You’re fighting for your life. So, do whatever it takes.
Consequences shape behavior. If you want to change behaviors focus on the consequences.
In other words, you completely disregard rapes where there is no force. Where he coerced her into sex against her wishes. By putting in the element of force only, you automatically set a rigid standard like those who argue about 'legitimate rape', where she is held down and raped, leaving out those who are drugged, are too drunk to consent, are coerced or convinced to say yes by either words or even foreplay until she just gives in.In other words, instead of asking “Did he have reason to believe that is was consensual sex?” We need only to ask “Did he use force to have sex with her against her will?”
But when we do, we are blamed for having been there in the first place. "Why were you having sex with him and then changed your mind? Buyer's regret?" or "Why were you in bed with him and allowed him to have sex with you and then stopped? Don't you think you were leading him on? What could you have done to prevent it?"..We should be able to disengage even during intercourse. We should be able to say “Yes” and then say “Get the fuck off me.”
Or we can educate men that women are equal and that their rights should be respected.Either, we stop glorifying casual sex for both males and females or we accept the fact that women are wired for casual sex, as well.
When we can say "Yes" our "No’s" will be louder.
That, I think, is a false statement. Empathy is far too often in deficit, and its ever-reliable guidance function too often unavailable.marquis said:Empathy should never preclude or prevent action. But in this world, it has a tendency to drive it, which is perhaps even more dangerous.
You abused it from ignorance and consequent lack of empathy. Had you been able to feel the plant drowning, heating up in the sun, struggling to breathe and cool off, you would not have had to butcher it back and start over.What I didn't know, until I did some reading, was that it didn't need that much water. That much light. That much love.
I'd cared for it just a little too much.
The central delusion of the authoritarian mindset, and a contributing factor in the generation of rapists and abetting of rape by a given society.Everything is about control, as much as it may purport otherwise.
Deuteronomy 22:24 said:Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city.
You insist on confusing emergency and marginally effective self-defense measures with rape prevention generally. Why?trooper said:Are you kidding me right now? We have to bend over backwards to appease who, a potential jury? Why, because in the past rapists were let off the hook because of their victim’s failure to fight them off?
Oh, I see… we have to fucking tiptoe. We’re supposed to avoid preventive measures because it may justify an assault, is that it?
You are reinforcing societal norms, including victim blaming, that make rape prevention difficult (not just rapist prosecution).trooper said:I don’t want to reinforce those double standards that make prosecution difficult, but my future daughter in-law works nights in the city
You are reinforcing societal norms, including victim blaming, that make rape prevention difficult (not just rapist prosecution).
Trooper said:
I'm making rape prevention difficult, am I now? Does rape prevention reinforce rape, iceaura?
Societal norms, eh?
WTF? Is there an elephant in the room? What myth reinforces rape, iceaura?
Can you name it and tame it?
Tiassa said:Does this mean you really haven't been paying attention the whole time you've been swooning over Elliot Rodger, attacking rape victims for failing, and pitching a fit on behalf of rape culture because you don't like Bells?
Any woman who allows ideological dogma to sway her from giving preventative advice, that’s the real mean girl.
To shun rape prevention for women is to expose countless women to violation. That we do this to dream of a better world is a foolish and cruel irony.
http://thefederalist.com/2014/03/04/is-preventing-violence-against-women-sexist/
Indeed, to some people here, rape prevention is as evil as rape itself, since it might make another woman who was raped feel as if she could have done more. They feel it is far better to make no efforts to prevent rape, so no one feels bad.I'm making rape prevention difficult, am I now? Does rape prevention reinforce rape, iceaura?
Are you kidding me right now? We have to bend over backwards to appease who, a potential jury? Why, because in the past rapists were let off the hook because of their victim’s failure to fight them off?
Oh, I see… we have to fucking tiptoe. We’re supposed to avoid preventive measures because it may justify an assault, is that it?
Let me know when you die-hard feminists have changed public opinion, will you? I don’t want to reinforce those double standards that make prosecution difficult, but my future daughter in-law works nights in the city. I would like her to stop texting when she’s walking to her car. I want her to pay attention to her surroundings. So, let me know when these changes fully take hold, will you?
Hmm…I've told my son these things. Don’t get so drunk at party that you can’t take care of yourself. Pay attention to your surroundings. Be careful.
Wait just a minute…I’d be reinforcing double standards, if I can’t tell her to be careful, too.
Nah, screw that shit. I taught my son how to defend himself and I will teach her, as well.
that just it. your not about preventing it. your all about it not being you. that's not prevention that's changing the target. until you demand those that rape be the ones we concentrate on rather than tell women they have an obligation to prevent them selves from being raped your part of the problem.I'm making rape prevention difficult, am I now? Does rape prevention reinforce rape, iceaura?
Societal norms, eh?
WTF? Is there an elephant in the room? What myth reinforces rape, iceaura?
Can you name it and tame it?
How 'bout mythical satyrism, the uncontrollable male sexual urge?
So your not saying women shouldn't wear certain clothes. that they shouldn't drink that they shouldn't go to bars?Bullshit. You’re lying. That never happened. Quote me.
Trooper said:Oh, Jesus, stop being so overly defensive and dramatic. Like I said before, I don’t know Bells or care to. She could be a 250 pound man for all I know, but I do know this, she mimics you. You’re both over the top and almost identical to “REALLY!?! with Seth and Amy.” I can’t tell if you’re a parody or not.
I wasn't swooning over Elliot Rodger you idiot.
I said that he wasn't a good example to use and that you were vultures for doing so. I called you out on your dry foot policy and your request to all atheists. Do you want the links?
You and I don’t see eye to eye, that’s all. No biggie.
Oh, look, I’m not the only one who feels this way.
Bells said:You tell your daughter, 'don't drink to excess, don't get into cars with strangers, don't leave your drink or accept drinks from people you don't know or trust, etc'..
As I said, sage advice. Something parents tell their kids regardless.
Now, tell your daughter 'if you want to prevent or reduce your chances of being raped, don't drink to excess or drink alcohol, don't get into cars with strangers, don't leave your drink or accept drinks from people you don't know or trust, etc'..
Can you see the difference of how that is applied and is taken differently?
Tiassa said:In the end, Trooper, you'll find reality is a much better realm for dealing with these problems than whatever faery-tale magick land you're blindly believing in.
It is victim-blaming to say someone “deserved” to get raped if they didn’t follow the prevention tips. But it’s not victim-blaming to suggest that people to protect oneself from the bad people in the world.
The argument that simple rape-prevention measures amount to "victim-blaming" puts women at greater risk. The activists urging people not to take common-sense measures because that’s not how the world is supposed to work are conveying a far more dangerous message than those pointing out that it's dangerous to walk alone at night.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/w...ainst-rape-and-sexual-assault/article/2553616
Trooper said:
No, really....because apparently, you and bells want us to pretend that bad people don't exist. Nope, no predators. Nope, there are no rapists watching you drink, buying you drinks.
So, yes, drink up girls, drink like a man.
Like I said before, the "it's on us" campaign is excellent, but it won't solve all of our problems. The drunk driving campaigns were great, but people still drink and drive.
You tell your daughter if she doesn't want to be raped, she shouldn't drink, etc? But if she wants to invite rape from some predator, then she should drink? You know, "rape prevention"?Really!?! No, really....because apparently, you and bells want us to pretend that bad people don't exist. Nope, no predators. Nope, there are no rapists watching you drink, buying you drinks.
Men drink differently to women? Here I thought both sexes drank by consuming liquids through our mouths.So, yes, drink up girls, drink like a man.
Much better to tell girls that if they drink, then they fail, because we all know that women who really don't want to be raped, are prepared and don't drink, etc.Like I said before, the "it’s on us" campaign is excellent, but it won’t solve all of our problems. The drunk driving campaigns were great, but people still drink and drive.
I prefer Tiassa Dry Foot to indicate the mouth of residence.As expressed colloquially, it's Dry Foot - but not Dry Foot, of course!.... but Dry Foot.
From the Wayback:Document that statement.Capracus said:You stated my undefined belief would somehow not give comfort to the grieving community, so I contrasted this vague assertion with your insulting statement that men assaulting and shooting women in nightclubs is typical in their community.
A member of the grieving community could take the above statement to imply that any male member willing to slap a woman, if given a gun will just as likely kill them. You think the typical man who slaps, typically harbors murderous intent? Next describe what exactly my non-comforting beliefs are so we can both be privy to them.What makes this atypical is its magnitude, i.e., access to a firearm.
That bitch-slaps generally don't kill doesn't make them right or even morally and functionally neutral.
Slaves consumed nutrients provided by the master. A fetus consumes nutrients provided by the mother, but not her blood. Ever hear of an organ called the placenta? It’s the thing that magical personhood cord is attached to.So if, say, I required sustenance, I could drink your blood?
Women are people who contain locations, one of those locations is called the uterus, a location where new people develop, new people who you seek to deny as such by virtue of their location.And the problem with the slavery analogy is that its applicable limitations make it rather quite the stupid analogy, especially when you insist on it this long. Women are people, not mere things or locations.
That women contain property, locations and real estate is factually apparent, the way you associate those elements in regards to personhood is what is offensive.You're the one who argues that women are property. You're the one who argues that women are mere locations. You're the one arguing women as real estate.
If you're disgusted, you did it to yourself.
Eureka! You finally got it straight. According to Tiassa Dry Foot, located in the mother equals non-person, located outside equals person. Location, location, location.As I recall, your whole purpose in wanting to stuff babies back inside women had to do with location, location, location.
What’s the fuss? Just crush its skull before complete delivery, while its feet are still wet.Because birth itself carries enough hazards; you can't perform a D&C; you can't perform a saline bath; D&X is illegal, even under emergency circumstances. Attempting to perform a D&C or saline bath at that time creates a risk potential that most doctors wisely avoid. Even if they see only one patient at that point, i.e., the mother, it is a difficult call to invoke that risk without medical necessity.
Everything on the planet has a physical location, including a woman’s uterus.It's hard to believe that you really don't get the difference between a physical coordinate on the face of the planet and the volume inside a person's body.
Only some doctors make exceptions in regards to the destruction of the underprivileged occupants the house.Within your plantation metaphor it would be important to remember that the doctor has already promised that he won't burn down the house.
It's kind of part of being a doctor.
But you would reserve the right to destroy her prior to delivery.And please try to remember that as a parent, it should not be any point of pride to me that the first time her parents held her, our daughter was wanted, loved, and not looked upon as a curse.
My shared fantasy:Next time, try a relevant article. What prosecutors and judges say about a woman's mind when they're sending her to prison is not an accurate evaluation of her mental state.
As it is, your response is one of cowardice. You're the one fantasizing about this implication; what do you think is going on in a woman's mind?
What was on Mrs. Catt’s mind? Apparently not birth control, or timely abortion, or regard for the life of what was essentially a new born child. Her refusal to reveal the location of the body may have been her way of evidentially shoving it back into the womb to avoid a charge of infanticide.Catt had waited until term before premeditatedly destroying her child, lied about it and had prevented a postmortem examination with its potential to determine the cause and timing of death.
Her persistent refusal to reveal the location of the body was originally said to be a consequence of legal advice, but was now put down to her not being "emotionally able" to address the issue.
"Mrs Catt caused the death of a foetus at term. She intended to do it. She planned what she did with some care. She ensured that when she delivered the infant, it was in private. Somewhere there is a body.
"She had known by October 2009 that she was pregnant and she had ample time to seek a lawful termination. She was not without experience in that regard."
As a consequence of medical reports, she added, the trial judge had no option but to treat Catt as a normal rational individual, who did what she did for reasons of her own, never adequately explained.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/12/appeal-jail-term-woman-aborted-baby-40-weeks
Talk about fantasies, name one state in the US where Tiassa Dry Foot is in force.Meanwhile, you're dealing with a different set of laws; remember that Dryfoot applies under American law. Perhaps you remember that? The discussion about American policies and the Constitution? So in the first place, it's English law, which is a whole other set of circumstances.
Our reality is composed of things, and some of those things happen to be people. So what specifically do have against things?Your anti-abortion outlook views women as things. So do rape advocacy and Infinite Prevention Advocacy.
And the law in the South basically defined them as property and non-persons.No. Read your history. It was, for example, the slaveowners who were lobbying to have their slaves counted as persons in the US. Slavery is completely compatible with personhood - nothing but law and custom prevents people from being a category of property.
Slaves were legally considered non-persons unless they committed a crime. An Alabama court ruled that slaves "are rational beings, they are capable of committing crimes; and in reference to acts which are crimes, are regarded as persons. Because they are slaves, they are incapable of performing civil acts, and, in reference to all such, they are things, not persons."[29]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treatment_of_slaves_in_the_United_States